The health care team challenge: Developing an international interprofessionaleducation research collaboration

Christie Newton, Lesley Bainbridge, Valerie Ball, Karyn Baum, PeterBontje, Rosalie A. Boyce, Monica Moran, Barbara Richardson, Yumi Tamura,Don Uden, Susan J. Wagner, Victoria Wood

PII: S0260-6917(14)00242-1DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.07.010Reference: YNEDT 2769

To appear in: Nurse Education Today

Received date: 27 February 2014Revised date: 2 July 2014Accepted date: 5 July 2014

Please cite this article as: Newton, Christie, Bainbridge, Lesley, Ball, Valerie, Baum,Karyn, Bontje, Peter, Boyce, Rosalie A., Moran, Monica, Richardson, Barbara, Tamura,Yumi, Uden, Don, Wagner, Susan J., Wood, Victoria, The health care team challenge:Developing an international interprofessional education research collaboration, Nurse Ed-ucation Today (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.07.010

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofbefore it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production processerrors may be discovered which could a!ect the content, and all legal disclaimers thatapply to the journal pertain.

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

THE HEALTH CARE TEAM CHALLENGE: DEVELOPING AN

INTERNATIONAL INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

RESEARCH COLLABORATION

Christie Newton, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Family Practice, Director of Continuing Professional Development and Community Partnerships, Director Division of Professional Development, College of Health Disciplines, 400-2194 Health Sciences Mall, University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z3 Phone: 604-822-1712 Fax: 604-822-2495

Lesley Bainbridge, PhD, Director, Interprofessional Education, Faculty of Medicine, Associate Principal in the College of Health Disciplines, 400-2194 Health Sciences Mall, University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z3 Phone: 604-822-1712 Fax: 604-822-2495 lesleyb@mail.ubc.ca

Valerie Ball*, BComm, Research Coordinator, College of Health Disciplines, 400-2194 Health Sciences Mall, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z3 Phone: 604-827-3386 Fax: 604-822-2495 valball@mail.ubc.ca

Karyn Baum, MD, Professor of Medicine, Associate Chair of Clinical Quality, Department of Medicine, Medical Director, Utilization Review, University of Minnesota, Division of General Internal Medicine,420 Delaware Street, SE, MMC 284, Minneapolis, MN 55455, Phone: 612-625-6370 kbaum@umn.edu

Peter Bontje, Associate Professor, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo. Faculty of Health Sciences, Div. of Occupational Therapy, Graduate School of Human Health Sciences, Dept. of Occupational Therapy, 7-2-10 Higashiogu Arakawa-ku Tokyo 116-8551 JAPAN Phone: +81-(0)3-3819-7349 bontje@oregano.ocn.ne.jp

Rosalie A. Boyce, Associate Professor, Centre for Rural & Remote Health, University of Southern Queensland and School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, P.O. Box 4229, St. Lucia South, Queensland 4067, Rosalie.boyce@gmail.com

Monica Moran, DSocSc, MPhil(OT), Associate Professor, Central Queensland University School of Health & Human Services, Building 6/2.39 Bruce Highway,Rockhampton,QLD 4702 Phone: +61 7 4923 2234, monica.moran@cqu.edu.au,

Barbara Richardson, Director of Interprofessional Education and Research Washington State University. Division of Health Sciences, P.O. Box 1495, Spokane, WA 99210-1495 Phone: 509-324-7230, barichardson@wsu.edu

Yumi Tamura, Professor, Graduate School Health Care Sciences, Jikei Institute, 1-2-8 Miyhara, Yodogawa-ku Osaka, 532-0003 Japan. (April 2014: Professor,The Japanese Red Cross College of Nursing, Disaster Nursing Global Leadership Degree Program, 4-1-3 Hiroo,Shibuya-ku,Tokyo 150-0012, Japan.) Phone: +81(0)6-6150-1336, yumi-djan@diary.ocn.ne.jp

Don Uden, Professor, Department of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems, University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy. 7-159 Weaver-Densford Hall, 308 Harvard St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: 612-624-9624, udenx001@umn.edu

Susan J. Wagner, Senior Coordinator of Clinical Education, Director of Continuing Education, Senior Lecturer, Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto. Department of Speech-Language Pathology, #160 – 500 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1V7, Phone: 416-978-5929, Susan.Wagner@utoronto.ca

Victoria Wood, Project Manager, College of Health Disciplines, University of British Columbia. 400-2194 Health Sciences Mall, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z3 Phone: 604-822-8693 Fax: 604-822-2495

Word count 2528 Acknowledgements: None Funding/Support: CIHR Meetings and Planning Grant, University of British Columbia Other Disclosures: None Ethical Approval: Not applicable Disclaimer: None

*Corresponding Author

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2

THE HEALTH CARE TEAM CHALLENGETM: DEVELOPING AN

INTERNATIONAL INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

RESEARCH COLLABORATION

Interprofessional education (IPE) to improve and increase interprofessional

collaborative practice (IPC) has been documented for over 50 years in Canada, but it is

within the last 15 years that it has gained attention in research, education and practice

contexts. IPE is defined as two or more professions that learn with from and about each

other to improve collaboration and the quality of care (Caipe 2002). Early drivers for a

renewed interest in IPE and IPC derive from an emerging interest in new health service

delivery models such as integrated care clinics and primary health care and IPE and

IPC have taken centre stage nationally and globally. Research evidence is emerging

(Baker, 2010) which demonstrates the value of IPC in areas such as harm reduction,

reduced length of stay, sustainable health outcomes, and staff recruitment and

retention. Most education programs are starting to embed IPE in their entry-level

curricula and increasing attention to continuing professional develop is emerging.

The barriers and curricular challenges remain. Entry-level curricula are crammed

and lack the flexibility and nimbleness required to identify common learning times;

student clinical placements across the professions are not aligned and make it difficult

to locate interprofessional groups of students in any given practice setting; faculty and

preceptor development for interprofessional teaching is rarely highlighted; student value

of IPE is weakened when IPE is not mainstreamed in curricula; human, financial and

space resources are stretched and IPE often falls to the lower priority levels.

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3

Other documented barriers include professional regulatory requirements, non-existent

institutional policies that allow sharing of course credits across programs or universities,

lack of senior management/ administrative commitment, poor understanding of other

professions and separate professional languages (Moran et al, 2007).

In reality we have a conundrum. In response to the emerging evidence that

collaborative practice among health care providers does improve quality of care and

patient outcomes, IPE is viewed as an essential educational process aimed at

developing interprofessional collaborative practice capabilities (Barr and Ross, 2006;

Baker, 2010). Government agencies, academic accrediting councils, health professions

organizations and the literature stress the need for IPE (Baker, 2010), yet evidenced-

based suggestions as to how this should be accomplished are only slowly emerging.

Innovative interprofessional learning opportunities are needed to ensure that students

actively participate (Moran et al, 2007). Yet currently the literature lacks strategies that

foster collaborative learning among professions that are versatile and easy to implement

locally and internationally.

One such innovative IPE program aimed at overcoming the many barriers to IPE

and initiated at The University of British Columbia, Canada, over 20 years ago, and

adapted for use internationally (Boyce et al, 2009) is the Health Care Team ChallengeTM

(HCTCTM). In June 2011, faculty members from six universities in four countries who

each host an annual HCTCTM event (in Australia HFTCTM), convened to develop a

collaborative research program. Funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research

through  its  ‘Meetings,  Planning  and  Dissemination  Grant’  program,  the  short-term goal

of the workshop was to refine the HCTCTM model through a process of reviewing

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4

applicable learning theories and interprofessional literature; identifying key

characteristics of a HCTCTM using a modified Delphi process; and examining the

strengths, weaknesses or challenges, opportunities, and threats associated with

embedding a HCTCTM in the curricula of health professional programs. The group came

together as the founding participants of an International Network of Health Care Team

Challenges. The long-term aim of the Network is to demonstrate that students who

participate in a HCTCTM are (a) more likely to engage in learning about collaborative

practice and (b) more likely through this exposure to become effective collaborative

practitioners, thus contributing to improvements in health care delivery and patient/client

outcomes. This paper describes the key elements, operational strategies, strengths,

challenges and potential variations of the HCTCTM model as defined by the International

Network of Health Care Team Challenges. It is hoped that through collaborative

international research of the HCTCTM, promotion of curricular and cultural change for

implementing IPE programs will occur that encourages students to engage in

collaborative patient/client-centred practice in academic institutions world-wide.

The HCTC TM Model

The HCTCTM is an IP learning activity designed to provide pre-professional or pre-

licensure level health and human services students with an opportunity to engage in

simulated patient/client-centered collaborative practice. As a result, participants learn

about, from and with one another, while also practicing skills and acquiring knowledge

and  attitudes  that  will  contribute  to  their  ability  to  be  “workforce  ready”  health  care  

professionals.

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5

The learning objectives align with the six competency domains of the Canadian

National Interprofessional Education Competency Framework (CIHC, 2010) which were

used to inform the development of interprofessional education accreditation standards

in both Canada (AIPHE, 2012) and the USA (Zorek, and Raehl, 2013). The competency

domains are: 1. patient/client centeredness, 2. collaborative communication, 3. role

understanding, 4. team functioning, 5. shared leadership and collaborative decision

making and 6. conflict resolution.

The HCTCTM is easily adaptable for a  variety  of  health  professions’  programs  and  is  

responsive to local resources and contexts. Students from many health professions may

collaborate in a HCTCTM, as long as the patient/client scenario is relevant to all

participants and represents a credible health care situation. Cases may vary in

complexity, be placed in various contextual settings and include elements of safety and

quality improvement. Emphasis may be placed on variables such as cultural

components of health, public health concerns, emergency preparedness, ethical

dilemmas or end-of-life issues.

Using a modified Delphi technique, the International Network of Health Care Team

Challenges participants identified and recommended inclusion of the key characteristics

and operational considerations for every HCTCTM.

Insert Table 1

The HCTCTM Process

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6

The HCTCTM is a clinical cased-based challenge between two or more

interprofessional teams of students representing at least two different health and social

service professions, however 4 to 8 different professions are recommended. Student

participants receive the initial patient / client scenario at least one week in advance of

the live learning activity. Teams are instructed to work collaboratively to formulate a

patient / client-centered plan of care. On the day of the HCTCTM, the teams present their

plan in front of a live audience of faculty, peers and community members. Then teams

are presented with additional information relevant to the case, challenging each team to

adjust its management plan to incorporate the new information. Additionally, teams are

asked  to  respond  to  “team process  questions”  such  as,  “While preparing your

responses how did  your  team  deal  with  conflicts?”  Teams are assessed by the

audience, an IP panel of judges that may include the patient /client or family member,

faculty, administrators, practicing community-based professional and / or care team.

Teams are judged on both the quality of the management plan and the level of

collaboration. All team participants receive recognition for their involvement.

Case Example

A female soldier is seriously injured in a Middle eastern conflict. She requires immediate

emergency attention, including transport to a military hospital in Germany.

New information presented during live presentation:

a) The soldier is stabilized and made ready for transfer home to her home city.

b) The soldier is transferred from acute care to a rehabilitation centre with the goal

of discharge home.

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

7

c) She is prepared for discharge and returned home to her community with disability

support.

This case example can be adapted to include any number or type of health profession

or context such as vulnerable populations or rural health care.

Outcome Measures:

An ongoing challenge for the International Network of Health Care Team Challenges

is assessment of changes in knowledge, skills, and attitudes resulting from participation

in a HCTCTM. Until the development of the Network, assessment and evaluation was

completed to different degrees, using different tools at each institution.

At the University of British Columbia the participants and audience complete informal

online surveys to identify changes in interprofessional knowledge and attitudes. These

pre- and post- surveys have consistently demonstrated improved knowledge of and

attitudes towards collaborative practice.

In Australia team participants complete pre and post assessment that measures

changes in beliefs, behaviours and attitudes related to interprofessional socialization.

Data collected over 7 years indicate sustained behaviour changes, increased

confidence and increased IPE understanding and proficiency.

At Washington State University, students are assessed pre and post participation to

measure attitudes about teamwork, collaboration, professional identity and roles and

responsibilities. Findings indicated that shared learning with other health care students

would help them communicate better, that team-working skills are essential for all health

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

8

care students to learn and that patients would ultimately benefit if health care students

worked together to solve patient problems and that learning with other students would

help them become a more effective member of a health care team. (Richardson et al,

2012):

As part of the research agenda, the International Network of Health Care Team

Challenges is working to identify valid and reliable tools that can be used across

settings. Collecting data from participants around the world in different health care

contexts will provide further insights into the value of the HCTCTM as an IPE model.

Figure 1 depicts how the key characteristics play out for the students during an actual

HCTCTM activity.

Insert Figure 1

Strengths and Challenges of the HCTCTM Model and Process

After agreeing on the key characteristics (see Table 1), the International Network of

Health Care Team Challenges evaluated the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and

threats – a SWOT analysis - inherent in the HCTCTM model and process.

Insert Table 2

A major strength of the model is its sound theoretical framework. From an

educational theory perspective, the HCTCTM directly aligns with the World Health

Organization’s  principles of effective interprofessional education as the model is

practice/problem-based and patient / client-focused (Baker, 2010). As there is currently

no universally accepted IPE theoretical framework, the HCTCTM is supported by

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9

elements of two established educational theories - experiential learning theory provides

structure for the IP learning activity and social learning theory informs group process

(Barr and Ross, 2006; Baker, 2010).

Additional strengths lie in the HCTCTM model’s  versatility.  Flexibility  is  achieved  

through potential for involvement from multiple professions, adjustable depth of clinical

learning and extracurricular scheduling. Faculty members can easily develop the case

to involve multiple health and human service professions, focusing on relevant clinical

content or emphasizing particular aspects of team process.

One subtype of this IPE model is the CLARION Case Competition which developed

separately from the UBC HCTCTM. It further  demonstrates  the  model’s  versatility.  This

competition, while interprofessional, extracurricular, and experiential, is focused more

upon patient safety and quality improvement than its peers. Teams perform a root

cause analysis of a clinical scenario and are judged not only for team process and

clinical case management, but also on fiscal responsibility and administrative

efficiencies (further information is available at

http://www.chip.umn.edu/clarion/casecomp/).

Another strength of the HCTCTM lies in its iterative development and implementation

process. Over the years since initial implementation, the HCTCTM has evolved and

matured with feedback from student and audience participants, and critical evaluation of

past successes and limitations. The HCTCTM format supports continuous quality

improvement. The annual Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles have facilitated a gradual

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10

integration of IPE into the curricula of many participating professions and evolution of

faculty collaborations through the promotion of an interprofessional culture.

Finally, the ongoing HCTCTM success relies on strong administrative support and

IPE champion faculty representatives from each of the participating programs. Faculty

designs the case or enlists an actual patient /client, advertise the session, recruit

students and judges. The ongoing dedication of faculty is enhanced by support from

deans, chairs and directors that encourage faculty participation on the HCTC planning

committee and release students from classroom obligations to attend the learning

activity.

The main challenge of the HCTCTM pertains to it being a simulated learning

opportunity that does not build in specific transfers to and mastery of collaborative

competence in practice situations. Furthermore, outcome data of the HCTCTM is

fledgling at best. Other weaknesses are that the HCTCTM does not document “best

practice”, but rather the best among the different teams. While its extracurricular status

serves as strength in flexibility of implementation; as a non-compulsory part of the

curriculum, the HCTCTM may not be perceived as scholarly work and therefore lack

institutional support.

Future Directions

Based on the inventory of strengths and challenges, the Network devised the

following plans to further develop the HCTCTM as an IPE model and to address its

weaknesses. Process-wise, intra- or extra-curricular live sessions and virtual

synchronous or asynchronous team challenges represent implementation strategies for

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

11

the HCTCTM that would facilitate wider dissemination, both locally and internationally.

The patient/client/family role is also one that could be expanded through consistent

inclusion of simulated or real individual(s) to ensure a primary focus in this area. To

further address the need for transferable data, in addition to common assessment tools,

Network participants are developing common patient / client scenarios. Research

regarding the roles of students as they engage in collaboration and the impact of

cultural variables is also being pursued. The HCTCTM model has started to expand into

graduate education, for example in Japan and the USA. Future plans include adapting

the IPE model for use with practicing providers of team-based health care and

embedding it into the international interprofessional education conference: All Together

Better Health.

Last but not least, it is hoped that the outline of the HCTCTM model and process in this

paper may inspire readers to develop HCTCTM that fit their local needs and to become

part of the international Network.

Conclusion

Despite challenges, it is possible to embed IPE into existing health and human

service curricula. The process may be enhanced by implementing IPE learning activities

such as the HCTCTM that focus on team-building skills and reinforce professional role

development. Due to limited research, effectiveness of the HCTCTM cannot be

generalized to all settings. The Canadian, U.S.A., Japanese and Australian experiences

suggest that the HCTCTM is a versatile IPE model that successfully introduces IP core

competencies within existing curricula, and ensures that health profession students

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

12

have an opportunity to learn and practice collaboratively in a safe and structured

environment. The International Network of Health Care Team Challenges will continue

to collaborate to further develop, research, and disseminate this unique IPE model.

References:

Accreditation of Interprofessional Health Education (AIPHE), 2012. http://www.cihc.ca/files/aiphe/resources/AIPHE%20Principles%20and%20Practices%20Guide%20-%20v.2%20EN.pdf

Baker, P.G., 2010. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice. World health Organization, http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:233239

Barr, H., Ross, F., 2006. Mainstreaming interprofessional education in the United Kingdom: A position paper. Journal of Interprofessional Care 20 (2), 96–104.

Boyce, R.A., Moran, M., Nissen, L., Chenery, H., Brooks, P., 2009. Interprofessional education in health sciences: Why a health care team challenge. Medical Journal of Australia 190 (8), 433-436.

Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC), 2010. A National Interprofessional Competency Framework, http://www.cihc.ca/files/CIHC_IPCompetencies_Feb1210.pdf

Centre for Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE), 2002. Defining IPE, http://www.caipe.org.uk/about-us/defining-ipe/

Moran, M., Boyce, R., O'Neill, K., Bainbridge, L., Newton, C., 2007. The Health Care Team Challenge: Extra-curricula engagement in inter-professional education. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-disciplinary Journal 8 (3), 47-53.

Richardson, B., Gersh, M., Potter, N., 2012. Health Care Team Challenge: A Versatile Model for Interprofessional Education. MedEdPORTAL, www.mededportal.org/publication/9287

Zorek, J., Raehl, C., 2013. Interprofession education accreditation standards in the USA: A comparative analysis. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27 (2), 123-130.

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

13

Key Words

interprofessional education; interprofessional simulation; case-based education;

interdisciplinary health professional education; international medical education.

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

14

Figure 1

1. Student teams receive a case and are assigned a task or a goal –

assessment criteria is communicated to students at this time

2. Student teams work together to create a tangible product based on the

assigned task or goal for the case

3. During the live learning activity, student teams must respond to new

information, such as case twists or questions from the audience. At the

end of the live session, student teams produce a second tangible product

such as an interprofessional care plan, and are asked to respond to

process questions regarding their teamwork

4. Student teams are assessed on the process and/or the product by judges

and audience

5. Student teams receive feedback

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

15

Table 1. Key Characteristics and Operational Considerations of the HCTC TM

Key Characteristics Operational Considerations

Facility to be

integrated into curricula

When possible this learning activity should be part of a larger

interprofessional curriculum that engages students and is

integrated within their uniprofessional program.

At least two teams Having more than one team involved supports the principle of a

challenge, which is supported by social learning theory. The

overall number of teams involved will be influenced by available

resources. There is no maximum number of teams that can be

involved.

Minimum of two

professions on each

team

Based on the definition of interprofessional education, IPE

involves two or more professions. Group theory suggests six –

eight people per team are ideal for small group learning (Johnson

& Johnson, 1991). Team composition should be authentic, based

on  how  a  team  would  be  composed  in  a  “real”  practice  setting.

Choice for students

to participate as a team

member

While students may be invited to participate as a team

member, they should not be required to do so.

Transparent

recruitment of team

members

As the learning activity becomes more popular, more students

than can be accommodated may volunteer to participate as a team

member. Organizers should have a transparent process for

deciding which students will be able to participate on a team.

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

16

Audience

participation

The challenge should take place in front of an audience.

Students may be required to attend as an audience member as

part of an interprofessional or uniprofessional class activity or as

an elective. Observation is considered to be exposure to an

interprofessional learning activity. Academic and clinical faculty

may also be part of the audience along with other stakeholders, as

appropriate.

Support for

education/learning

Teams should have access to support for both content and

process. This may be from: faculty mentors, practitioners, process

resources, content resources, consumers (patient/client,

community organizations, health care organizations) and on-line

resources.

Recognition for

faculty

Ongoing support from dedicated faculty is necessary for

sustainability of the model; therefore, it is important to recognize

the contributions faculty make. This can take the form of faculty

performance and workload recognition; a certificate/letter and / or

verbal/public acknowledgement.

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

17

Table 1 Continued

Recognition for

students

Ways in which students can be recognized for their

participation include a certificate/letter, scholarships, academic

credit, prizes and / or meeting a required component of their

program (i.e., within an IPE curriculum).

A case with

assigned task(s)

This case-based learning activity should utilize cases at an

appropriate level of complexity based on theories of team

development, the level of the learners and the learning objectives.

The content of the case should not be so complex that it distracts

from the interprofessional process. The case should be authentic,

grounded in reality. It is also important that the case be distributed

to participants prior to the learning activity. Participants should be

asked to complete a task associated with the case (e.g., develop

an interprofessional care or management plan).

An interprofessional

team that is developed

over time

Providing the case prior to the session enables students to

develop as a team. This can be done face-to-face, virtually,

synchronously and / or asynchronously.

Real-time team

response to new

information

During the learning activity, teams should be presented with

new information they will process as a team. This could involve

engaging in teamwork or answering questions from the audience

and/or judges; being presented with case plot twist/extensions; or

responding to provocateurs.

A tangible Teams should be required to create a product such as an oral

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

18

product/deliverable that

can be assessed

plan of care; a PowerPoint presentation; a written report; a video or

a role play.

Facility for

assessment of

interprofessional teams

Teams can be assessed on their process and/or the content

(the deliverable). Assessment can come from a panel of judges,

the audience, and/or peer/self-assessment. Judges may include

faculty, consumers, community members, practitioners,

administrators and / or students.

Opportunity for

feedback to teams

Verbal, written or on-line feedback can be provided to teams by

the audience, judges, peers, and/or content and team process

experts.

Program evaluation In order to continuously improve delivery, it is important to

evaluate the model. Formal evaluation may include on-line/written

surveys and/or focus groups. Informal evaluation may include

debriefs and/or student feedback. Faculty may also choose to

evaluate the session as part of a program-wide evaluation

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

19

Table 2. Strengths and Challenges of the HCTCTM Model and Process

Helpful

in Achieving the Learning

Objectives

Harmful

in Achieving the Learning

Objectives

Strengths Challenges / Weaknesses

Internal

Origin

(attributes of

the organization)

Uses interaction and focuses on students

Incorporates core competencies Transforms participants Adapts for local contexts Challenges stereotypes (e.g.,

professional / cultural) Uses flexible goals (e.g., content,

context) Involves an enjoyable student

experience Uses collaborative, case-based

learning Includes all health and human

services professions Involves, patient / client family /

community Fills a gap in traditional learning

environments Involves incentives to participate

(e.g., prizes, credits, certificates) Uses no additional financial

resources Pushes students out of their comfort

zone Offers an extra-curricular

opportunity (e.g., overcomes scheduling issues)

Crosses academic and social spheres (i.e., may include a social element)

Presents an opportunity to develop IPE champions

allows exposure to other professions but may not allow mastery of collaborative practice

Does not oblige audience participation

May not fit some students (public speaking)

Is not embedded if extra-curricular

Involves limited number of participants

Includes challenging logistics Is not perceived as scholarly

work and may lack faculty buy-in

Lacks outcome data Does not address differing

levels of students that may result in varied awareness of professional roles and identity

Does not capture team learning

Does  not  document  “best  practices”    succinctly

Has self- selection of students

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

21

Table 2 continued

Opportunities Threats

External

Origin

(attributes of

the environment)

Adapts well to technology Has potential to improve patient

/client care Demonstrates local health

providers collaborative care models

Facilitates health care reform Has potential to change practice Can be package / marketed Develops leadership Builds positive recognition for

programs involved Increases relationships with

community partners Meets accreditation standards Disseminates internationally Creates repository of cases Standardizes processes

Is subject to leadership changes

Needs funding Needs organizational

commitment May lack resources May lack sustainability May need academic rewards

structure Lacks formal recognition for

faculty involvement Is subject to health care reform Requires time from faculty for

case development, mentors May involve proprietary cases May be subject to conflicting

academic schedules of different programs

Is subject to professional silos

ACCE

PTED

MAN

USCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

22

REVISION: THE HEALTH CARE TEAM CHALLENGETM: DEVELOPING AN

INTERNATIONAL INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION RESEARCH

COLLABORATION – Christie Newton et al.

Research Highlights

A health care team challenge is an effective and versatile model of interprofessional education

The model has been applied internationally and a research collaboration has evolved

The model overcomes many barriers to interprofessional education and collaboration

The international research network is growing and will further develop the model